Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth?

[The Crow]

Question is, can any one be trusted to write the truth? Especially when it comes to this religious hypocrisy.

Eusebius wrote the only historical truth extant on Christian origens but Carrier wrote that Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous.

Trust in the force Luke.

Well I have read that Eusebius was a liar.......I think a forger to if I am not mistaken.

[John T]

Cognitive dissonance is the rejection of the information that is inconsistent with one's beliefs and it can infect both atheist and theist alike.

Technically, cognitive dissonance is a mental state that can trigger defense mechanisms that may include rejecting the new info, but there are about six other common defense mechanisms that can also be employed, one of which is accommodating one's beliefs to resonate with the new information. Happens all the time in real life, why not here?

DCH

Yes, you are right but it doesn't apply here.

Have you ever seen any of Carrier's sycophants on this forum say, 'Whooa...I never knew Carrier was such a crank exegesis and had so many debunked bizarre theories.' Furthermore, what are the chances they will even read, "Did Jesus Exist?" simply to fact check what Carrier had to say about the book?
Slim to none.

Which leads to, what will mythicists suffering from cognitive dissonance likely do now? I predict they will petition Peter to have this thread removed or worse, ban me for daring to present the other side of the coin.

At the very least, I have made some permanent enemies on this forum for simply pursuing the truth.

"To be aware of one's own ignorance is true wisdom."...Socrates

Sincerely,

John T

[MrMacSon]

.
Now for those who wish to see the actual words come out of Carrier's mouth: "The Gospels are myths ... we can't extract any particular history from them."

Bart Ehrman has said the same thing in several of his books such as Jesus Interrupted, Forged, etc

[MrMacSon]

.
Take Eusebius as example. In his work Praeparatio Evangelica, which I recently set my eyes on. Actually surprisingly interesting and recommended, from my point of view that is. ( Many thanks to Roger Pearse for the intellectual gifts I have received )

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index ... _Gospel%29

But passing from these points, you will by the like method confute all the rest of their grand physical theory, and with good reason rebuke the shamelessness of those, say, who declared that the sun was Apollo himself, and again Heracles, and at another time Dionysus, and again in like manner Asclepius.

For how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once? And how could he be changed again into Heracles, since Heracles has been acknowledged by them to be the son of a mortal woman Alcmena? And how could the sun go mad and slay his own sons, seeing that this also has been ascribed to Heracles?

Here Eusebius argues the physical improbabilities of Greek beliefs. Take note of the father and the son being one and the same, a concept or idea promoted by shamelessness of those who hold such beliefs.

This is quite interesting b/c it aligns with first of the Aristotlean "Three Laws of Thought" - a (post-Plato) philosophy of logic seemingly lost for the last couple of millennia.

[MrMacSon]

.
When it comes to Ehrman and his assumption of stories regarding Jesus being unique. And similarities are some kind of recent idea, which he almost argue should be ridiculed by default. I kind of sense a somewhat dishonest approach. I have read a couple of books by Ehrman (listened to audiobooks, to be correct), and acknowledge him as scholar/academic with vast knowledge. What I find difficult to accept is how the early church fathers and their repeated comparison of their God and beliefs, as similar or little different from other present at the time. This the church fathers argue in order to prove the legitimacy of their beliefs are equal to other beliefs.

Defense turns to offense when influence and power shift. So when legitimacy is no longer questioned, the arguments of their beliefs as unique and without any comparison develops.

When the son of man, son of god, and the miracles related to his birth is discussed. I experience the claim of not being literally identical as imagined proof of differences beyond any comparison. Again, to use example, I vaguely remember from Ehrman, as it discussed historicity of texts and discrepancies as tool used in examination of texts. Discrepancy, discrepancy... sounds like Ehrman at least. Well, he gave a hypothetical example of discrepancies in texts to show what gave reason for further examination. Loosely it went something like if one gospel says some people met two angels at tomb of Jesus, and another mentions one angel, you have a discrepancy giving reason to question the text. I remember this because I reacted to the obvious reason to question texts did not come by discrepancies between number of angels in texts, but the presence of angels at all.

I am actually not criticizing Ehrman. But point out that neither Ehrman, Carrier nor those regarded as superior scholars in their field should be trusted to write the truth. Authority gives no truth to argument. One should always examine and evaluate arguments on the grounds of the arguments themselves. Ehrman says this or Carrier says that, are by themselves no support for any claim or argument. Relating it to "someone" said no dying and rising gods is known prior to the gospels, I can only respond with suggestion of actually examining if what "someone" said is correct. That is, if conclusion is the product of research and not the other way around.

A significant problem in discussing these early-Christian texts is we are discussing layer upon layer of uncertainty: vague concepts that are given far more 'agency' than they deserve. The arguments are hardly based on facts, unless one is discussing the vagaries of these texts, or unless one is trying to discern how the serial texts might have changed in their theological concepts.

[perseusomega9]

For being a sanctimonious hypocrite, john t is now on ignore

[spin]

For being..., john t is now on ignore

Seems to me it took too long.

[RecoveringScot]

"To be aware of one's own ignorance is true wisdom."...Socrates

Sincerely,

John T

And yet you have previously written that Jesus 'most certainly existed'. That is a claim to knowledge ('certainly').

[Kapyong]

Ehrman in his book "Did Jesus Exist?", looked at the prevailing views of the leading mythicists. He picked them apart one by one and showed there was no there, there. Carrier, Doherty, Feke, Gandy, Price, and Wells all make statements of fact that are unguarded, undocumented or outright misstatements of fact.

I don't believe you.
Please provide an example where Carrier made "statements of fact that are unguarded, undocumented or outright misstatements of fact".
Kapyong

Please go to my post on page 8. There you will see a cut&paste of Carrier's blog where he attacks Ehrman. Most of his attacks are over minor issues of grammar and not the merit. However, the example I provided should have been enough for a fair minded person to question the integrity/arrogance of Carrier.

That's twice you've dodged what I asked you.

The subject here is not Carrier's arrogance.

I asked you, and I repeat,
Please provide an example where Carrier made
"statements of fact that are unguarded, undocumented or outright misstatements of fact".

Twice at least you have made claims about Carrier, and failed to back them up.

Kapyong

[Leucius Charinus]

.
Take Eusebius as example. In his work Praeparatio Evangelica, which I recently set my eyes on. Actually surprisingly interesting and recommended, from my point of view that is. ( Many thanks to Roger Pearse for the intellectual gifts I have received :notworthy: )

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index ... _Gospel%29

But passing from these points, you will by the like method confute all the rest of their grand physical theory, and with good reason rebuke the shamelessness of those, say, who declared that the sun was Apollo himself, and again Heracles, and at another time Dionysus, and again in like manner Asclepius.

For how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once? And how could he be changed again into Heracles, since Heracles has been acknowledged by them to be the son of a mortal woman Alcmena? And how could the sun go mad and slay his own sons, seeing that this also has been ascribed to Heracles?

Here Eusebius argues the physical improbabilities of Greek beliefs. Take note of the father and the son being one and the same, a concept or idea promoted by shamelessness of those who hold such beliefs.

This is quite interesting b/c it aligns with first of the Aristotlean "Three Laws of Thought" - a (post-Plato) philosophy of logic seemingly lost for the last couple of millennia.

Good point Thor. Eusebius is a can of worms. Eusebius would also have us believe that Plato received instruction from Moses. But I find his most treasured fabrication (still firmly believed by most) is the LXX was an "early BCE" Ptolemaic initiative. Eusebius is not trusted to write the truth. I have wondered how Carrier would treat Eusebius in his recent work, and he apparently reserves on a few pages on this central source of Christian origins.


Mac could you please elaborate on these Aristotlean "Three Laws of Thought", and how they align with Eusebius' propaganda, and especially in his claim that "how could the same person be both father and son, Asclepius and Apollo at once?". Much obliged.

Be well,


LC